I really don't see why having code that expresses logic that _looks_ liek
maybe it's HTML is good.
Today, Paul J. Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> frothed and gesticulated about...:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Autarch wrote:
> > <option value="uk" <% 'selected' if $country eq 'uk' %>>
> >
> > Seems pretty close to what you want, I think.
>
> Except it puts Perl code in the HTML file and uses invalid
> HTML.
Later, Gerald Richter said:
> Let me say one word to mixing design and code. Template::Toolkit (and
> other modules, which don't directly include perl code), reclains, that
> they better separate code and design, but form my point of view they
> simply create a new "language". If you want to separate code and design,
> that could also be done with modules like Embperl, Mason, ASP which
> directly inlcude Perl code.
Replace "could" with "should" and I have to endorse this assertion 100%!
Why the heck do we need more programming languages? I understand people
think they're performing some kind of service by cooking up something that
looks simple for non-programmers but it looks more like hamstringing to
me, no thanks. I'm impressed with Wardley's analysis of the problem in
the proceeding of the Perl conference but his solution looks unappealing
to me: a language that is Perl yet it's not, ugh!
As far as Jacob Davies call for standardizing templating: that's what XSLT
is about! My grievance there is necessity of representing data as XML
(or at least an XML DOM tree) to do anything. So, I'm back at my original
conclusion settling on a powerful component system (Mason) but looking
seriously at gluing in hooks for transformation (AxKit).
--
Salon Internet http://www.salon.com/
Manager, Software and Systems "Livin' La Vida Unix!"
Ian Kallen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / AIM: iankallen / Fax: (415) 354-3326
